Thanksgiving Day, and why America is different...

[Savior2006]

It's a pesky problem with that faith.

Hardly a "problem" in our "faith" when we don't make that claim. Religious conservatives made that our claim, and that's your problem. Not ours.

 

[RDKirk]

Have not researched Benjamin Bannecker, but your prejudice is astounding!

You could have at least asked what I was talking about, inasmuch as you clearly don't even know and barked up the wrong tree.

That's what prejudice is.

 

[RDKirk]

Horse hockey, the people who do the work keep their money and many became wealthy. They all were capitalists.

You must not have actually read the OP.

The problem identified in the OP was that the colonists were not getting to keep the profit, but were required to send the profit to the shareholders in England.

When they changed that arrangement and kept the profit themselves, they worked more effectively.

 

[RDKirk]

You might want to read the Mayflower Compact.

You might want to read English history, particularly the English Civil War.

 

[Avid]

You could have at least asked what I was talking about, inasmuch as you clearly don't even know and barked up the wrong tree...

The prejudice I reference is your attitude toward a man who is not only my favorite, but should be considered a hero. As far as a name I had not heard, I do not (after seeing the prejudice you displayed,) particularly care what yuo think of that situation. There is a ton to respond to, and I only posted a little.

http://users.law.capital.edu/dmayer/Blog/blogIndex.asp?entry=20060413.asp

Jefferson was ambivalent at best – and hypocritical at worst – about slavery because, sadly, he could not transcend the racist views he shared with fellow white Virginians of his time. Slavery existed because white Americans regarded black persons as inferior, intellectually – a “suspicion” that Jefferson voiced in an infamous passage in his Notes on Virginia. To his credit, later in life, after he met the black mathematician and astronomer Benjamin Bannecker and was confronted with other evidence of intellectual achievements by black persons, Jefferson retracted his earlier view. But, unfortunately, he remained quite race-conscious, to the end of his days: that was why he was alarmed (as if awakened “by a fire-bell in the night,” he wrote at the time of the Missouri crisis in 1820) about the prospect of a racial civil war; that’s also why I believe a sexual relationship with a slave – even a light-skinned mulatto, as Sally Hemings was rumored to have been – would have been unthinkable for Jefferson. (Indeed, I think that among the strongest reaons to reject the Hemings paternity thesis is the absence of any evidence Jefferson even noticed Sally Hemings or regarded her as anything but one of his domestic slaves. As the Scholars Commission report shows, the notion that Jefferson gave “special” treatment to Sally and her children – like the erroneous claim that he freed her and all her children in his will – too is nothing but a myth.)
​

Just a little research to find that. Been busy today...
.

 

[conamer]

Hardly a "problem" in our "faith" when we don't make that claim. Religious conservatives made that our claim, and that's your problem. Not ours.

It's not a problem, it just shows God can act outside of the known laws of science. With a no God scenario you are the one who must square with how all the matter and energy came from nothing.

Atheists are thinking inside the box. It takes more faith to be an atheist. The Swiss cheese of atheism has more holes than cheese.That is why that fable blast won't go without challenge.

 

[conamer]

You must not have actually read the OP.

The problem identified in the OP was that the colonists were not getting to keep the profit, but were required to send the profit to the shareholders in England.

When they changed that arrangement and kept the profit themselves, they worked more effectively.

My bad.

 

[conamer]

The concept of separation of Church and state was brought to America by that very group of people. That's why they were called "Separatists" in England.

My point is that they did not intend to impress their religion on anyone outside their group. In fact, as staunch Calvinists, their understanding that attempting to press their religion on someone who was not Elect was useless anyway.

They where Christians, have you ever heard of "The Great Commission"? The May Flower Compact stated that they were going to spread the Gospel. In effect you are claiming they were disobedient Christians and were just going to preach to the choir.

 

[Savior2006]

It's not a problem, it just shows God can act outside of the known laws of science.

Why not? When you are making up your own character, why not make him awesome?

With a no God scenario you are the one who must square with how all the matter and energy came from nothing.

Once again, many atheists don't claim that. I don't.

Atheists are thinking inside the box.

Uh huh...

It takes more faith to be an atheist.

Man, I would give you points if that comment was original.

The Swiss cheese of atheism has more holes than cheese.That is why that fable blast won't go without challenge.

Well at least you tried.

 

[conamer]

Why not? When you are making up your own character, why not make him awesome?

Once again, many atheists don't claim that. I don't.

Uh huh...



Man, I would give you points if that comment was original.

Well at least you tried.

It doesn't have to be original.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

A whole line of conversation that was off topic was removed. The topic is in the OP. Stick to that topic, please.

 

[Avid]

The primary problem with the scheme was that the profits of the colony were not kept by the colony, but went to capitalists who didn't participate in the work.

Am I the only person who noticed that?

That is a main reason for the thread, and yes, I noticed (to the degree it was true,) and so did the Pilgrims on the Mayflower.

The fact is that there would have been some amount (significant amount) of what they produced that needed to be returned. Not everything, or they would not have ANY provision for their own survival. The ROI was part, and what they produced in excess they had for themselves. They could eat the little bit they had from supplies, and pray the next supply ship arrived before they starved, or they could produce EXCESS amounts, live well and healthy, and satisfy their obligation easily.

The change had some to do with a better ROI for the shareholders, but it MOSTLY had a lot to do with their survival, and THAT is why they changed. Their survival was in jeopardy, and they needed to change, or starve like most others in the similar situations. There is much more to the story, though, and it seems we are having difficulty ever getting near that.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/11/27/the_real_story_of_thanksgiving_is_catching_on_out_there

The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community, every pilgrim, was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. They were going to distribute everything they owned and everything they built equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.

Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune...

William Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, and it was theirs. He assigned it, but they owned it, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.
​

What was expected of the people who came to America on someone else's dime was that there would be a return on investment (ROI,) and the investors had a say in how they should run the colony. Problem was, it didn't work. What Bradford did, described in his own words, was to change that dynamic. That is where the quote comes in. He was in charge, and they were all likely to die on his watch if he didn't do something drastic.

Self reliance in these matters, and self interest, are NOT selfishness per se. They are the prime motivating factors people respond to. This particular experiment in communism had come to a close.
.

 

[JGG]

It's not a problem, it just shows God can act outside of the known laws of science. With a no God scenario you are the one who must square with how all the matter and energy came from nothing.

I think the point you're missing is that hardly any atheists claim that something came from nothing. Most atheists will tell you that they "don't know" how the universe started. I don't. I don't have to square anything. How do you square how matter and energy came from nothing?

Atheists are thinking inside the box. It takes more faith to be an atheist. The Swiss cheese of atheism has more holes than cheese.That is why that fable blast won't go without challenge.

Um...alright. It's true. Atheism, science and our knowledge in general is full of holes. I'm cool with that. I have no trouble admitting I don't have an answer for every mystery. I have no need to fill those holes with the same answer like "goddidit".